![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Edward John Trelawny appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 May 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Who's putting in things like 'If there is one word, which best describes Edward John Trelawny, it is that he was a “Survivor” ' and 'there is no telling how long he might have lived'? It sounds silly. And 'Survivor' with a capital 'S' signifies either he was a victim of the Shoah or the TV series. Mikething ( talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I made some minor improvements in places where the article sounded choppy. There is also a section Philosophical Radicals where I changed the pronouns referring to the group from their to its. This agrees in number with group which is a singular noun.
However, I later noticed "criticise" spelled in the British manner (spelt? ha ha) and it occurred to me that using group as a collective noun might be correct British usage. I know it's common to say things like "Microsoft released a new version of their operating system" whereas in the USA we would say "Microsoft released a version of its...". So, someone familiar with the rules of British usage should double check my work.
Cheers,
Dave [[WP:NPP|You can help!]] ( talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article on Trelawny has relied too much on one of the few biographies of Trelawny that presents him in a favourable light. Almost everything that Trelawny wrote, especially about Byron, is riddled with errors and downright fabrications - this is not opinion but simply fact when you compare his letters with original documents, dates and so on. It has been dealt with by serious biographers such as Doris Langley Moore. This article, however, seems to take Trelawny's demonstrably fabricated statements at face value and present them as fact. Although the general level of wikipedia articles as regards balance and accuracy is, in my opinion high, I have to say that this is one of the most erroneous and misleading I have read. It needs to be gone over by a specialist of the period who can look at the facts of the case and present Trelawny as he was - a Romantic figure, but an entirely untrustworthy biographer who's writings are nowhere trusted as source facts by academics unless they can be substantiated by other sources or original documents. 4wight ( talk) 13:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)4wight.
Note: the woman depicted in the painting was a professional model: from John Guille Millais's biography of his father: "the female figure was painted from a model, who also posed for the picture Stitch, Stitch, Stitch, painted in 1876." (Life and letters, vol. 2, p.52.) Paul B ( talk) 16:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Edward John Trelawny/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article about Edward John Trelawny is so poorly written the only comment I can make (without totally rewriting it) is ignore it and go elsewhere to find something more reliable.
Try: http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/trelawny-edward-john Many biographies have been written about Trelawny, so unless you are serious about wanting to try to know and understand what he was about, I would suggest reading “Trelawny – The Incurable Romancer” by William St Clair (John Murray, 1977). It is not perfect (I have pointed out to the author several errors) but it is the most objective of the lot. Sirswindon 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious why Sirswindon is so defensive as this article is very poor plagiarism of a weak source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:413E:3148:3112:7CB8:CB56:C1E6 ( talk) 03:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Edward John Trelawny appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 May 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Who's putting in things like 'If there is one word, which best describes Edward John Trelawny, it is that he was a “Survivor” ' and 'there is no telling how long he might have lived'? It sounds silly. And 'Survivor' with a capital 'S' signifies either he was a victim of the Shoah or the TV series. Mikething ( talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I made some minor improvements in places where the article sounded choppy. There is also a section Philosophical Radicals where I changed the pronouns referring to the group from their to its. This agrees in number with group which is a singular noun.
However, I later noticed "criticise" spelled in the British manner (spelt? ha ha) and it occurred to me that using group as a collective noun might be correct British usage. I know it's common to say things like "Microsoft released a new version of their operating system" whereas in the USA we would say "Microsoft released a version of its...". So, someone familiar with the rules of British usage should double check my work.
Cheers,
Dave [[WP:NPP|You can help!]] ( talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article on Trelawny has relied too much on one of the few biographies of Trelawny that presents him in a favourable light. Almost everything that Trelawny wrote, especially about Byron, is riddled with errors and downright fabrications - this is not opinion but simply fact when you compare his letters with original documents, dates and so on. It has been dealt with by serious biographers such as Doris Langley Moore. This article, however, seems to take Trelawny's demonstrably fabricated statements at face value and present them as fact. Although the general level of wikipedia articles as regards balance and accuracy is, in my opinion high, I have to say that this is one of the most erroneous and misleading I have read. It needs to be gone over by a specialist of the period who can look at the facts of the case and present Trelawny as he was - a Romantic figure, but an entirely untrustworthy biographer who's writings are nowhere trusted as source facts by academics unless they can be substantiated by other sources or original documents. 4wight ( talk) 13:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)4wight.
Note: the woman depicted in the painting was a professional model: from John Guille Millais's biography of his father: "the female figure was painted from a model, who also posed for the picture Stitch, Stitch, Stitch, painted in 1876." (Life and letters, vol. 2, p.52.) Paul B ( talk) 16:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Edward John Trelawny/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article about Edward John Trelawny is so poorly written the only comment I can make (without totally rewriting it) is ignore it and go elsewhere to find something more reliable.
Try: http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/trelawny-edward-john Many biographies have been written about Trelawny, so unless you are serious about wanting to try to know and understand what he was about, I would suggest reading “Trelawny – The Incurable Romancer” by William St Clair (John Murray, 1977). It is not perfect (I have pointed out to the author several errors) but it is the most objective of the lot. Sirswindon 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious why Sirswindon is so defensive as this article is very poor plagiarism of a weak source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:413E:3148:3112:7CB8:CB56:C1E6 ( talk) 03:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)